On the Mark: Political donations come with a cost

MARK STRAIN

12:23 PM, Dec 27, 2010

Rick Scott wasn't elected by a super majority of voters; not even close. His race was won by a mere 61,550 votes out of 5,359,735, just slightly above 1 percent.

Obviously, it would not have taken much to change the election results. His party affiliation may have helped, the problems we face nationally may have helped, and his decision to self-fund the vast majority of his campaign costs might have influenced many voters. After all, not too many politicians enter a race with the ability to contribute more than $60 million to their own campaign.

It is hard to imagine what it is like to live with $60 million, much less to have the wealth to be able to decide to spend that amount on a political campaign. According to Scott's December 2009 financial filing, his net worth at that time was $218,589,004 making the $60 million more than a quarter of his entire financial wealth.

The fact that he decided to invest so much of his own money in order to win an election is remarkable and seen by many as a new form of politics. For some voters it appeared as an attempt to buy the highest office in the state, to others it appeared as a sincere gesture to use one's own resources in order to prevail in an election without depending upon the obligations that generally accompany political contributions from special interests.

For whatever the reason, Scott's approach was anything but conventional.

This is why his gala inauguration and inaugural ball seem so far out of character from what some voters may have expected. Granted, like his campaign, the funds to pay for most of the inauguration related events have been donated, but unlike his campaign, the money is being donated by private and special interests.

Inaugurations have changed over the years since former Gov. Layton Chiles set a limit of $100 per donation. Later, Governors Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist limited donations to $10,000. Crist went a step further and cancelled the inaugural ball, thereby eliminating all donations for that event. Scott has resurrected the festivities and set his limit at $25,000 per donation.

The belief is that since the inauguration events are being funded by private donations it is not costing the taxpayers anything. The reality could be far from the truth. More than $1 million has been acquired to pay for the inauguration festivities and even if it all came in the form of $25,000 increments, that means a large group of special players who in return for their donation will get additional close-up time with the governor that the rest of us might never get.

That $25,000 could very easily cost taxpayers down the road in the form of influence which again most of us could not achieve. What the future impact will be is unknown but with the variety of reforms promised by our new governor, it would be easy to make a change practically anywhere in the system without creating the appearance of individual influence. The changes could be suggested and made by anyone within the new power structure, even without the governor being actually aware of it. Influence is often indirect.

Which brings us back around to the question, why spend $60 million of your own money to gain a political office? Even after the maximum allowable time in office, the salary will not come close to making up for the money spent. For some the obvious hope is that Scott's personal agenda is a sincere attempt to use his position as governor, presumable obtained without excessive influence from special interests and to demand better accountability and performance from all elected officials, including him.

For those who are more cynical, Scott's method of acquiring his new position might be seen as simply purchasing political power for some personal gain.

Beginning his term with festivities financed by special interests that have heretofore been primarily absent from his political career isn't a good sign for anyone who expected a different approach over politics as usual. It is far too early to write Scott off, but his beginning raises the concerns of those who were already skeptical. It is an action that need not have taken place; we did not want and many voters did not expect to see just another politician.

There is still hope that when our new governor gets down to serious business it will be in the manner many hoped for.